Abstract

In this paper we discuss our approach to designing two public exhibitions,
where our goal has been that of facilitating and supporting visitors’ own
contributions to the exhibits. The approach behind our work sees the
role of technology that is supporting people’s experiences of
heritage as moving away from delivery of information, and towards enabling
visitors to create the content of the exhibit. This approach is aimed
at encouraging active reflection, discussion and appropriation, in
the tradition of human-centred interaction design. In the paper we
present two installations, “Re-Tracing the Past” and the “Shannon
Portal”. The former was aimed at supporting visitors’ experiences
of a museum collection; the latter had the goal of encouraging visitors
and travelers to share their experiences of Ireland. We then discuss
the impact of this design strategy, and analyse the role of visitors’ contributions
to each exhibit, and the particular interactions between participants,
the content they produced and other people’s contributions that
took place around the two exhibits.

1. Introduction: Interaction Design for Museums and Exhibitions

This paper discusses the importance of designing interactive exhibits
that allow for visitors’ direct participation and contribution,
from the perspective of human-centred interaction design. We present
an overview of research featuring a participative approach to exhibition
design, highlighting the relevant issues that have emerged in the field,
and we present two examples of interactive exhibitions that we have designed
with an explicit concern for visitors’ participation. Finally,
we discuss the positive outcomes that such a design approach has led
to regarding both examples.

The fields of Human-Computer Interaction, Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work and more recently, Interaction Design, have paid considerable attention
to issues related to the introduction of technology within museums and
exhibition spaces. Concerns regarding the usability, usefulness and educational
value of technological museum interventions have been raised, both regarding
the design and production of these tools and the evaluation of their
use by museum visitors (Marti, 2001; Grinter et al., 2002). Examples
of interventions that have been developed in the past number of years
include interactive information points, mobile digital visitors guides
and interactive exhibitions. As well as reflecting on the qualities that
such installations should feature from the point of view of their design,
several issues surrounding the problematic nature of overlaying digital
content over museum artifacts have also been discussed, including the
impact on the social nature of the museum visit (vom Lehn et al., 2001),
the educational value of the installations (Hall and Bannon, 2006), and
their potential to support engagement and flow (Giaccardi, 2005). In
other words, besides ensuring that a certain technological intervention
responds to specific design guidelines both in terms of physical and
of interface design, it is also necessary to reflect on how technology
impacts on the museum experience as a whole.

For example, electronic museum guides have evolved from inflexible and
isolating single user tools into adaptive presentation devices that can
take into account social aspects of the visit as well as the visitor’s
personal preferences and physical path (Woodfruff et al., 2002)

Interactive exhibits and interactive informational support to exhibits
have changed from the format of a standard touch-screen terminal which
might distance visitors from the objects on display to complex orchestrated
performances that can be aware of visitors’ presence and gaze,
their actions and preferences (Sparacino et al., 2000; Barrass, 2001).

Therefore, as well as technical developments, Interaction Design disciplines
have devoted significant reflections into conceptualizing higher-level
issues when looking at the role of technology in the museum visit. Notable
examples include vom Lehn at al.’s (2001) discussion of the role
that visitors’ participation in the exhibit can have in supporting
the social nature of the visit, and Chalmers and Galani’s (2002)
study of visiting experience at different levels: exploring the complex
interplay of the object, the technology and the different voices that
come into play in the interpretation process.

The vast majority of this research, however, has dealt extensively with
technology that has the ultimate function of delivering information to
visitors, albeit in sophisticated ways. A more recent development in
interaction design for museums and exhibitions is that of designing for
visitors’ participation and direct involvement in shaping, and
even creating, the content and message of exhibits. In the following
section, we will discuss some relevant examples.

2. Visitors’ Participation in Museum Exhibitions: Open Issues

The approach to design museum technologies that focuses on enabling
and facilitating visitors to actively participate in shaping or creating
the content, and in contributing to an exhibit, has been less commonly
applied in traditional museums. In fact, many technologically cutting-edge
installations (see for example Sparacino et al., 2000), although employing
novel input and output mechanisms that allow for some degree of innovative
interaction, still work on the assumption of the visitors requesting
and being delivered more information. However, several examples of installations
that are open to visitors’ active participation have been successfully
deployed.

Heath et al. (2002) and Hindmarsh et al. (2002) have discussed in detail
the ecologies of participation surrounding low-tech exhibits that visitors
can visually become part of, such as “Deus Oculi” and “Ghost
Ship”. The main goal of these exhibits is to encourage and engender
episodes of social interaction and communication around an exhibit, making
the visitors part of the exhibit itself, and thus drawing the interest
of companions and onlookers.

Other examples feature the possibility for visitors to shape the exhibit
in other ways. Visitors to the Memory Exhibition at the Exploratorium
in San Francisco can contribute their own stories to the body of information
associated with the exhibition (http://www.exploratorium.edu/memory/index.html).
On a similar theme, Lane and Parry (2003) describe an installation to
support the re-evocation and expression of personal memories of visitors
at the British Museum. As part of another science and technology exhibition
at “The Ark” cultural centre in Dublin, “Terraria” (Vaucelle
et al., 2005) was designed to encourage visitors to create their own
content by creating captures of their performance while playing a game.

More commonly, such exhibitions allow for some degree of visitors’ activity
and for the creation of personalized “mementos” of their
visit, but not for an explicit contribution of content to the exhibition
itself. For example, at the National Library of Medicine’s exhibit
on female surgeons, visitors could create Morse code message that could
be sent to friends, but not be used as a direct contribution to exhibitions
(Mullen and Tuohy, 2002).

From these examples, it emerges that an approach that is open to visitors’ contribution
is more often adopted when designing exhibits in the context of hands-on
museums such as exploratoria and science centres, and it is
less commonly found in “traditional” galleries exhibiting
artistic artefacts and antiquities. The main issue surrounding the introduction
of such an approach in this context is one of authorship: museums tend
to assume a role of authority when it comes to providing information
about their holdings. The interpretation of a certain object on display
is decided a priori by the curatorial team: thus the narrative
that is presented to visitors is not really open to challenges or external
contributions. Interactive art has produced interesting reflections on
collaborative practices in designing exhibitions, and on authorship issues
((Diamond, 2005), embodied by pieces that are explicitly designed to
create active visitor engagement (Giaccardi, 2005). This approach however
is more seldom found in more traditional art museums.

We believe this approach is effective because it relies on visitors’ curiosity
and interest on a topic and rewards their active engagement and reflection.
Having the possibility of expressing their own ideas and feelings makes
visitors connect strongly to what they experience, rather than just being
passive observers of something that is detached and unchangeable. Such
involvement strategies have been applied for many years by museum educators
and docents; we feel that appropriate technologies can embody a similar
approach and work successfully, also – if necessary - in conjunction
with human facilitation and guidance during the visit.

In our research, we aim at supporting visitors’ engagement, reflection
and appreciation of the exhibit by supporting their active participation
in contributing to the content of the exhibition, in the context both
of established art museums and of more informal exhibition spaces. In
the following section we present two examples: an interactive exhibit
for a museum housing a collection of art and antiquities, and an interactive
installation on the theme of Irish heritage that was exhibited at an
international airport.

3. Designing for Participation: User-Centred Design Approach

The work leading to the design of both exhibitions has been driven by
a user and activity-centred approach (Bannon, 2005): the development
of usage scenarios and technology demonstrators is constantly informed
by in-depth studies of the end users, their activities and the broader
context where they take place. In order to develop a thorough understanding
of these issues, we adopt methodologies aimed at gathering information
not just on how visitors physically move through the exhibition space,
which exhibits they prefer, and what kind of information about them they
seek; we also investigate how visitors communicate to each other around
the exhibits and how they make sense of what they see. We believe that
sense making is also tightly coupled with place, or how the
physical environment is lived and experienced by people: the qualities
of the physical layout of an exhibit become a factor of how the exhibits
themselves are associated with meaning by people (Ciolfi and Bannon,
2007). The range of methods we employ include observations, interviews,
inspirational materials sessions and walkthroughs (Ciolfi, 2007b).

The data gathered during this initial phase of the design process is
analysed in order to extract relevant dimensions, regarding the visitor
experience, that design could support and augment. As well as pointing
out how technology could aid the delivery of the museum’s own message
to people, we also consider how visitors’ views and thoughts could
be represented, and how technology could act as facilitator in this case.

Based on such findings, we conduct design sessions, where a number of
emergent themes are discussed and developed into scenarios. We also adopt
Participatory Design methods, involving museum experts, educators, volunteers
and sample visitors in the discussions and evaluations of prototypes,
in order to incorporate their views and concerns into the design process.
PD has recently been applied to the design of a number of interactive
installations in order to include a larger group of stakeholders into
the process (see for example Taxén, 2004).

This approach was applied to both the cases we present in this paper: “Re-Tracing
the Past” and the “Shannon Portal”.

3.1 Case 1: “Re-Tracing the Past”

“Re-Tracing the Past” was designed and developed for the
Hunt Museum in Limerick, Ireland: a personal and eclectic collection,
the Hunt Museum includes a great variety of artifacts, including a number
of objects that have never been fully interpreted. The Museum’s
approach to communicating the collection is that of fostering debate
and discussion among visitors, and of facilitating this through informal
volunteer help provided by the Hunt Museum Docents. The goal of our work
with the Hunt Museum was to extend the Museum’s ethos and message
through an interactive experience where visitors’ own opinions
would become part of the exhibit (Bannon et al., 2005).

Fig. 1 Overview of “Re-Tracing the Past”: the Study Room
(right) and the Room of Opinion (left)

“Re-Tracing the Past” supported the exploration of four
of the Museum’s “mysterious” objects through two fully
interactive environments, a “Study Room” and a “Room
of Opinion”, both including several hands-on interactive components,
and housed in the temporary exhibition gallery of the Hunt Museum, which
is accessible from the main galleries (Ferris et al., 2004). “The
Study Room” is where known information about the objects could
be discovered: the Interactive Desk provided information on
the geographical provenance of the artifacts; the Interactive Trunk showed
visitors were each object was found; the Interactive Painting displayed
visual and auditory information on the material qualities of the artifacts.
In the “Room of Opinion”, the participants could record in
voice their own theories and opinions regarding the objects and store
them for future visitors, thus actively contributing to the exhibit and
to the development of a body of information that was produced “live” in
the context of “Re-Tracing the Past”, and not previously
pre-packaged. The body of opinions was a perceivable representation of
the discussion and debate that surrounded the museums objects, and it
was made available to visitors through an Interactive Radio,
where people could browse through the body of audio recordings and hear
other participants’ experiences and thoughts. Each interactive
installation could be explored thanks to RFID-enabled keycards representing
the mysterious objects. The Museum staff and volunteers were also invited
to record their opinions of the objects, so that the Interactive Radio
became a representation of the different voices that are present in the
Museum: visitors, staff, docents and curators

The design rationale for “Re-Tracing the Past” emerged from
studies of the Hunt Museum exhibition policy and from the history of
the collection, as well as from observations of visitors’ explorations
in the museum. The museum encourages discussion and reflection around
the objects. The information regarding the collection is kept intentionally
minimal also in order to encourage the Docents’ personal support
of visitors.

The two spaces had very different design qualities to suggest different
activities: the Study Room is where information can be retrieved and
pieced together, whilst the Room of Opinion is where reflection occurs
(Fig. 1). All the installations were designed to support group interaction
and collaborative discovery.

Visitors’ reactions to “Re-Tracing the Past” have
been discussed elsewhere (Ferris et al, 2004); it is important however
to point out the very important role that the creation of recordings,
visitors’ own contributions to the exhibition, have played in the
overall experience of “Re-Tracing the Past”.

The recordings were appreciated by people as mementos of their visit,
as traces left of their presence and activities in the space. People
were keen to make recordings of their opinions as a mark of their efforts
in researching and understanding the mysterious objects.

The recordings were treated as new sources of information to inform
one’s investigation of the objects, thus becoming important elements
in new explorations: people were as interested in hearing other visitors’ comments
as well as their own, in order to glean more ideas and suggestions to
fuel further reflection on a object. Similarly, the recorded opinions
become for participants perceivable representation of their investigation
work, and not simply of their presence. They appreciated the fact that
their contribution would be useful to others, whether because well-informed
and plausible, or humorous and imaginative.

The recordings also worked as powerful triggers for social interaction
and collaboration within “Re-Tracing the Past”: both companions
and strangers would initiate discussions while listening to previous
recordings or making new ones (Fig. 2). The activity of bringing forth
personal thoughts and ideas seemed to stimulate social interaction more
than the activity of retrieving pre-prepared information about the objects
from the other interactive components of “Re-Tracing the past”.
Collaboration and discussion took place both among visitors and between
visitors and members of the museum staff who regularly attended the exhibition.

Fig. 2 Discussion among visitors while listening to recordings on the
Interactive Radio

Overall the possibility of contributing to the exhibition,
and more generally to the museum, led to high levels of engagement and
connection between visitors and the Hunt Museum, without replacing the
role of the museum as the “expert voice” regarding the objects.

3.2 Case 2: “The Shannon Portal”

The second exhibit, the “Shannon Portal”, was designed for
Shannon International Airport in County Clare, Ireland. The goal of the
installation was to extend the airport’s role as a connection hub,
allowing users to create content that would document their travels and
experiences in the West of Ireland. The “Portal” made it
possible for participants to create “e-cards” of their own
photographs of locations and monuments in the area, to annotate them
with a personal hand-written message and email them for free around the
world (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 The Shannon Portal

Participants could also “donate” annotated
photos to a public image gallery that was displayed in the airport’s
transit lounge, which constituted a visual record of their journeys and
of the heritage sites they had visited.

The public gallery of images was displayed on a “Image Wall” that
visitors could browse, navigating by body movement: a computer vision
system detected the presence of people in front of a particular portion
of the Wall, and subsequently triggered a virtual digital magnifying
glass to move in correspondence of the person’s position, so that
annotated images could be viewed more clearly (see fig. 4).

Fig. 4 The Image Wall

The design of the Shannon Portal was informed by studies
of people’s activities in the airport, and particularly by the
travel stories that passengers exchange while in the space: the airport
is where travels and visits to interesting parts of the country are recounted
for family, friends and sometimes strangers. Our goal was to design an
interactive installation that would entertain and engage waiting passengers.
The theme of Irish heritage appeared appropriate to the particular context
of the exhibit. The physical design of the Portal, in the shape of a
portal dolmen, reflected this theme: dolmens are Neolithic monuments
that can be found in high numbers in the West of Ireland, and that represented
the focal point and memento of a community in prehistoric times (Ciolfi
et al, 2007).

The Portal supported both private interactions (writing a message on
a photo and emailing it privately) and public ones (adding one’s
image to the Image Wall and exploring the Image Wall by moving in front
of it) around content that the participants themselves had produced and
personalized (Ciolfi, 2007a).

Similarly to “Re-Tracing the Past”, personalised content
was viewed by visitors as a memento of their presence and of their journey.
Participants uploaded photographs of the places they had visited, the
people they traveled with and also of the airport they were going through
at the time. They enjoyed the possibility of making their experience
visible to others. As well as in the museum, personalised content was
a trigger for social interaction, and a starting point for conversations
among both traveling companions and strangers regarding the places and
monuments visited and the experience of traveling around Ireland. Interestingly,
participants commented on how the annotated photos provided them with
other perspectives on the same places, or landmarks, and other views
of the airport, such as for example those expressed in photos uploaded
by airport staff members (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Discussion among staff and passengers while creating e-cards

Collaborative creation of content was also a recurrent phenomenon around
the “Portal”: families and groups collaboratively created
messages and drawings both for emailing to friends and for contributing
to the image wall. The participative aspect of the interaction particularly
encouraged collaborative use of the system, as groups of users enjoyed
creating humorous messages and sketches, and composing notes for their
loved ones together.

4. Discussion

Both cases showed how visitors’ participation in contributing
to the exhibition content had repercussions not only on the appearance
and layout of each exhibit, but also on the patterns of interaction that
occurred.

Social interaction, in particular, was greatly affected by people’s
ability to make direct contributions: not only in terms of collaboration
while creating the content, but also regarding the role that visitors’ contribution
played in engendering reflection, discussion and debate around the exhibits.
This happened equally in “Re-Tracing the Past” and the “Shannon
Portal”, although the two settings of the museum and the airport
supported different themes for discussion.

In the case of “Re-Tracing the Past”, visitors’ opinions
were very effective triggers for reflections on the nature of museum
exhibitions in general: visitors who were engaged in developing their
own theory were keen in discussing issues related to how museum exhibitions
are created and shaped. In this respect, designing for participation
does not simply respond to the need for technological innovation in supporting
cultural heritage; it also responds to the need of museums and
other sites to allow for a more active visitors’ role.

Visitors were able to view museums and exhibits as places that represent
multiple voices. In both cases, visitor contributions were seen as perceptible
mementoes of one’s presence, thus increasing engagement with the
exhibit.

One important issue that we had to consider in developing our design
for both exhibits was the risk that some visitors might produce inappropriate
content. In order to minimize the risk of this phenomenon happening,
we put in place monitoring systems that would allow the museum and airport
staff to easily monitor what was being displayed in the exhibition, and
to delete inappropriate contributions. However, this kind of content
appeared only very seldom, and could easily be dealt with without any
major effort by staff. The public setting of the exhibitions meant that
inappropriate content could easily be traced back to its creator, and
this dimension of openness worked as a deterrent in this regard.

5. Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed a user and activity-centred approach
to the design of interactive exhibitions that focuses on the possibility
of participants actively contributing by producing personal content.
We feel that novel technologies could be use effectively in supporting
more active visitor participation, moving away from installations that –albeit
in technologically sophisticated ways - simply deliver pre-packaged information.

We have exemplified this approach to design with the description of
two cases, “Re-Tracing the Past” and “The Shannon Portal”.
Both exhibitions have been designed and developed on the basic of in-depth
studies of the broader context of the exhibit and of the activities taking
place in each setting. The two examples show how this approach to design
can be effective not only in informal exhibition spaces, but also in
more traditional art museums.

We have described the main impact that visitor contributions had not
only on the layout and designed features of the exhibitions, but also –and
more importantly- on the patterns of interaction that occurred around
them: the contributions were powerful ways of engaging visitors in the
exhibition and creating a sense of belonging and attachment. Social interaction
and collaborative production of content was also greatly affected by
visitors’ ability to contribute to the exhibit. The two cases show
how a participative approach to interactive systems design can be successful
at a variety of levels, not least in triggering visitors’ reflections
on the role and nature of museums and exhibitions.

Acknowledgements

The “Shannon Portal” has
been developed as part of the “Shared Worlds” research project
funded by Science Foundation Ireland. “Re-Tracing the Past” has
been developed within the EU FET “SHAPE” Project, in collaboration
with the Royal Institute of Technology (Stockholm, Sweden), King’s
College London and the University of Nottingham (UK). Many thanks to
staff and visitors at both the Hunt Museum and at Shannon International
Airport, and to the many IDC colleagues who have participated in the
projects.

Diamond, S., Participation, Flow, and the Redistribution
of Authorship: The Challenges of Collaborative Exchange and New Media
Curatorial Practice, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the
Web 2005: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published
March 31, 2005 at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/diamond/diamond.html